Democracy In Albany

I think it can be. A candidate who is getting a huge number of small contributions looks better to me than one who relies on a few big donors, no matter who those big donors are. A candidate who owes a few big donors is going to have to return the favor somehow. Of course everyone owes somebody. The raw amount raised affects me less than how they got it.

If we are concerned with electability rather than future job performance, I think a candidate who cannot raise some minimum amount of money just isn't worth considering no matter how great I might think they are. So in this sense I am glad that Shahinfar and Steck are doing OK, i.e., they are still in the game.

Is it a useful indication of "front-runner" status?

I don't think these numbers are at all. Tonko clearly has the advantage at this point regardless of his money numbers. The rest of it could shake out in any direction (IMHO).

Does this kind of coverage tip the scales in favor of whoever is the best fundraiser?

For this specific case, I don't think any of the serious candidates are helped or hurt much. Personally I am dissappointed to see so much support for Brooks, but whatever - I don't think it's going to torpedo anyone else.

Does this type of coverage provide useful information for you to consider when deciding for whom to vote?

So as long as Lauren Stanforth keeps covering the race for the TU, Tracey can rely on a steady stream of media bias in her favor.

I don't mean to imply that Ms. Stanforth is lying, rather she is playing the old shell game of presenting the "facts" through a very thick, rose-colored piece of glass.
Just a few quick examples, "Brooks raised the most money during the second quarter and has raised a considerable sum on ACTBLUE, Tonko has only raised $100 on ACTBLUE so far."
On its face, this is true. The reality is that Paul Tonko did not start fundraising until the final month of the second quarter.

So how does the rest of the field's fundraising stack up against Tonko for the final month (a more realistic portrayal of current strength)- Tonko on Top, Brooks might have come in Second (more likely third behind Steck).

When Ms. Stanforth reported on the petition filings, instead of listing the total number of signatures, the traditional measure of strength, she listed the total number of pages submitted.

Why? Because if she had accurately presented the complete story, She would have had to write that her buddy Kyle Kotary's pet candidate Brooks came in a distant third behind Tonko (7000 on the democratic line alone) and Steck (5000 on the democratic line) and that unlike Tonko and Steck, she couldn't find a third party with a ballot line willing to touch her with a ten foot pole.

Hopefully someone on the TU's editorial staff will recognize this bias for what it is and assign her to a beat better suited to her talents, perhaps the Saratoga Racing season fashion shows?

If Ms. Stanforth does get assigned the fashion show beat, here's one valuable tip:

 Tracey Brooks and Paul Tonko are known quantities who can be (and appear to have been) controlled by the corporate media.  I have no doubt that either of them would be susceptible to a little "horse trading," i.e. blackmail by media corporations. And yes, the Hearst Corporation, if you didn't know, has a well documented history of doing exactly that to politicians.

I've observed that Mr. Steck, on the other hand, is not the sort of personality that can easily be intimidated by corporate media or any other powerful special interest.  That's why the media marginalizes him.

And my rule of thumb is: if the corporate media fears and hates a candidate so much that they have to supress mention of him or her in their copy, then that candidate is probably the best one out there.

As to your belief that any democratic candidate who is marginalized by corporate media, like the TU, is the guy you should support.

What about the State Senate Primary?

I take it by your standard that you are supporting Charlie Voelker, not Neil "Gosh its' great to get paid huge fat checks from the most egregiously union-busting law firm in the State (Hiscock and Barclay)and still be thought of as Friend of Labor" Breslin?

We won't even mention that Neil has been raking in Big Insurance (Lobbyist)dollars for years while ranking minority member on the Senate Insurance committee.

The TU has not provided one inch to the race despite the fact that Neil is facing at least one possibly two primary opponents. I don't know if both made it to the ballot, the TU has given no coverage at all to the petition filings for the race, the financial filings for the race, all the while covering every other State Senate race within 80 miles.

I wouldn't describe him in quite those harsh words, but essentially you are correct about him.  That's why he would make a great congressional representative.

If you've been following the news even marginally, then you are aware of how the so-called Democratic Congress has been "compromising" away our rights, our economy, our security, our very future.  Spineless clowns like Michael McNulty are Republican enablers, colluding in their systematic treason.

I'm sick and tired of compromisers.  I want a mean little bastard in there to represent me, one who is willing to stand up for our nation and for the 21st District.

And if you saw Mr. Steck's immediate and uncompromising reaction to the unamerican and unconstitutional FISA bill (which both McNulty and Barack Obama voted for) then you are aware that he is willing to stand for basic principles, and to hell with compromise

http://www.metroland.net/letters.html

Oh, and as for judging a candidate by who the corporate media rejects, that's hardly a hard and fast rule. I don't trust the corporate media even to make consistent mistakes.